•
•

Why We Removed our WSJ Video (youtube.com)

TheEpicTurban が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 248
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]BatmanOnMars [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

His fans got worked up into a foaming out the mouth rage about this, and he was making the same mistakes. I'm concerned by the WSJs ability to run with bad evidence, but i'm terrified of the public doing the same thing. People need to check their facts before they make claims. No one looks good in this.

[–]roozter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's hard to do impartial investigation when you are so emotionally invested into it. That's why it is so important to find a neutral perspective/opinion to check your work before releasing a huge claim.

[–]Tchaikovsky08 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

People were clamoring that Google should sue WSJ out of business. Now looks an awful lot like H3H3 is the one at risk of major tort liability.

コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

    [–]-___-___-__-___-___- [スコア非表示]  (34子コメント)

    Here was the WSJ's response to H3H3 before his original video was taken down:

    The Wall Street Journal stands by its March 24th report that major brand advertisements were running alongside objectionable videos on YouTube. Any claim that the related screenshots or any other reporting was in any way fabricated or doctored is outrageous and false. The screenshots related to the article -- which represent only some of those that were found -- were captured on March 23rd and March 24th.

    Claims have been made about viewer counts on the WSJ screen shots of major brand ads on objectionable YouTube material. YouTube itself says viewer counts are unreliable and variable.

    Claims have also been made about the revenue statements of the YouTube account that posted videos included in those screenshots. In some cases, a particular poster doesn't necessarily earn revenue on ads running before their videos.

    The Journal is proud of its reporting and the high standards it brings to its journalism. We go to considerable lengths to ensure its accuracy and fairness, and that is why we are among the most trusted sources of news in the world.

    https://www.dowjones.com/press-room/statement-wall-street-journal/

    [–]fasdvreae5 [スコア非表示]  (31子コメント)

    This isn't looking good for him. Clearly he still thinks something fishy is going on but he has no proof and won't ever have proof. Kinda of an idiot move thinking the largest newspaper in the US would do something so idiotic or that some reporter would place his entire career (much more on the line for that guy) for some random scoop about Youtube advertising. Common sense pls Ethan.

    [–]EDGY_USERNAME_HERE [スコア非表示]  (16子コメント)

    Why did my boy Ethan take the word of some random racist on YouTube over the reporting of one of the biggest and reputable newspapers in the country. Bad moves, Ethan, please stop

    [–]immaturejoke [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

    A lot of YouTubers have taken it upon themselves to present the current happenings as a war between new media and old media for some reason. I think they sometimes forget they're literally just entertainers for an audience comprising mostly of kids and teens. I don't want to diss being a YouTuber as a job, but reading some of the sensationalist replies from YouTubers on twitter, I've been feeling a lot of second hand embarassment these past few hours.

    [–]__brunt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    I don't know anything about this situation or who any of these people are, but seeing the other video hit the front page, I checked it out... and this whole thing is ridiculous. I know some people have YouTube fame (which is really weird to me in the first place), but thinking the fucking Wall Street Journal is in on some conspiracy to bring them down is on some serious Alex Jones level of grandeur.

    [–]reddit_Iurker [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

    It's not like it's their entire livelihoods on the line when advertisers pull support or anything.

    [–]rtsimp [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    if your livelihood is dependent on youtube ads should you be responsible for having things in your videos that advertisers don't want to be associated with?

    [–]reddit_Iurker [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    Advertisers have been pulling their support off of the entire YouTube platform because of outliers. Channels and videos with no offensive content are affected.

    [–]liliIllill [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    I doubt the "no offensive content" statement. Just because you don't find certain content offensive doesn't mean big brands don't.

    If their ads get caught or become associated with certain content, it can cost them billions.

    It's youtube's responsibility to make sure the companies' ad buys are protected no matter what.

    Youtubers have literally no say in this matter.

    [–]lnsetick [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    if their viewers were truly impartiable, they would call this bias.

    [–]KingOfSockPuppets [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    A lot of people on the internet, thanks to the proliferation of information, think that they have all the tools and are always using them correctly to solve whatever mystery (or conspiracy, or whatever) that crosses their desk. Remember Reddit's Boston Bomber fiasco after all. I imagine it's only more of a problem for someone who actually has a following of some kind as that can easily lead to thinking that you ARE right without any double checking or whatever. While I don't follow H3H3 at all, you can find no shortage of talking heads on youtube who have devout followings no matter what the actual quality of their views are.

    [–]reddit_Iurker [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

    The uploader of the original video didn't seem racist, that was just the name of the song.

    [–]fart_guy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    confirmation bias

    [–]Yosonimbored[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    It's more so if him trying to defend his lively hood(idk of right word). Without these big advertisers they lose out on money and it seems the only alternative is YouTube Red, but I doubt a big fraction of any youtubers fan base is going to pay for it.

    I think advertisers should be able to pick and choose who they want to advertise so they can avoid this. Like they can choose not to support Jontron but support H3H3 without YouTube doing an automatic thing. Maybe I'm talking out my ass so I apologize.

    [–]snoharm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    He's a sort of funny dude, but I don't know where anyone would get the impression that he's particularly sharp. He struggles with words and concepts that I feel like should be covered in most high schools.

    [–]montypython112 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Did you watch the video? The guy explained he isn't racist, and that he included that word in the title because its the name of the song playing.

    [–]IamSpiders [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    I mean WSJ did run a hit piece on Pewdiepie. But I feel like everyone is trying so hard to get a "gotcha" on WSJ that they are forgoing all integrity to make one happen. Like you're gonna tell me Ethan doesn't know that youtube views don't update in real time? It's entirely possible to get 2 separate ads on a video with the same view count showing. Seems like someone who makes his living on youtube would be aware of that.

    [–]vtschoir [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Kinda of an idiot move thinking the largest newspaper in the US would do something so idiotic or that some reporter would place his entire career (much more on the line for that guy) for some random scoop about Youtube advertising.

    Not really... I mean, be cynical for a second. Shit talks and money walks, right? People are people, and people make mistakes. Purely factually speaking, journalists from the Associated Press has been caught rushing in for the scoop and ended up putting out false information as facts before, either stupidly or intentionally. And they did so in a fashion that really held a lot of implications for international politics. So what exempts the WSJ? Not a damn thing. It's really just a part of the human condition.

    コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

      [–]SupaCure [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Unfortunately the latter statement doesn't back up the entire article. The person claiming revenue was clearly not making standard income off of a video, especially with high-end ads such as those. YouTube seemingly did something right.

      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

        [–]Ollie2220 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        I was surprised when reading the previous threads about the possibility of Ethan being wrong.

        It's interesting that he almost "doubles down" here, still calling out WSJ for the high profile ad distributors they took a screenshot of.

        We all just want YouTube to survive.

        [–]Corrupt-Spartan [スコア非表示]  (37子コメント)

        So Reddit, let's flip the coin. If the WSJ came out and said they were wrong, would be forgive them like you guys are forgiving Ethan? Because he fucked up big time and yall are acting like it's no big deal...

        Edit: IANAL but can someone clarify if Ethan committed libel? If so does WSJ have a case if they decided to sue?

        Edit 2: Refer to this commenter for information on libel

        [–]gooderthanhail [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

        Hell no they would not. Reddit still blames CNN for something Buzzfeed did.

        [–]flibbityandflobbity [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

        Reddit is outrage culture gone wild. Knee jerk reactions circle jerking eachother into a frenzy.

        Edit : it's at its worst when it leads into the real world though. People were harassing the reporter who dared write the article, damn.

        [–]Mr_Industrial [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        Yeah, Reddit is taking things to far, LETS DESTROY REDDIT!!!!

        (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

        [–]xXWaspXx [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        I don't think the knee-jerk reaction phenomena is exactly unique to Reddit. It seems like that's just where we are as a culture

        [–]flibbityandflobbity [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        It's not unique, its basic mob mentality. But I always get a kick out of how anti SJW/outrage culture/ identity wars Reddit gets while ironically missing those qualities in itself.

        [–]Noerdy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        We won't forgive Ethan. He made a massive mistake, causing Jack Nicas to get incredible amounts of hate and death threats as well as recklessly slandering the WSJ. He messed up big time, and while we love Ethan, it will take time for us to forgive him completely. But we are not what he has to worry about, its Jack Nicas and the WSJ's lawyers that could feasibly sue him for defamation, which frankly is not too crazy. I love h3h3, but it is sad to see them going down a sensationalist path. I know they won't do it again, but I am still worried for their future.

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          [–]immaturejoke [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

          Forgiving Ethan? People are straight up praising him.

          [–]Downvotes4Some [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

          But he apologized! Forgive and forget, right guys? /s

          [–]JayHez [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          I think the difference is that Ethan made an honest mistake, while the WSJ is actively trying to ruin YouTube for some reason.

          [–]SolidTake [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          "Mistake," recording video and gathering "evidence" for a couple of days and then editing and publishing the finished video wasnt just a mistake. Actions have consequences

          [–]antihexe [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          Edit: IANAL but can someone clarify if Ethan committed libel? If so does WSJ have a case if they decided to sue? Idk if what he said is considered libel or not

          I doubt it. Libel/defamation in the U.S. requires "actual malice", not just that the information is false. Hard to imagine a place like the WSJ with lawyers who fully understand this kind of law would bring a suit that's probably impossible to win and is exactly the kind of thing they want to be protected from being sued for.

          It's just embarrassing for him.

          Oh BTW, this is exactly the thing Trump is trying to weaken when he says "open up our libel laws."

          The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a "public figure", prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity [note: reckless here meaning "disregard of the truth or falsity of a defamatory statement by a person who is highly aware of its probable falsity or entertains serious doubts about its truth or when there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity and accuracy of a source."] Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such claims by public figures rarely prevail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

          [–]Corrupt-Spartan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          I'm going to reference you in my main comment. Thank you for answering

          [–]Srslyaidaman [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

          He didn't even retract his argument. He claimed because the video only made $12, that "this honestly doesn't make any sense and doesn't add up at all" that those "premium" ads would play on the video.

          Meanwhile, WSJ has responded with, "Any claim that the related screenshots or any other reporting was in any way fabricated or doctored is outrageous and false."

          [–]JayHez [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          He did retract his argument. He explicitly said that there's too much doubt to stand by that argument, but he still thinks something's up.

          [–]Drwildy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Sure. I don't see why not. If they put these seemingly true things and then once they realized it wasn't 100% accurate gave an update then I don't see how it's any different.

          [–]fear254 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          No they would say that the retraction isn't going to get as much attention as the original story

          [–]strongbadfreak [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

          H3H3 is in no way the to be held at the same standard as WSJ. Ethan is not a journalist, at least he corrected his mistake.

          [–]FatalFirecrotch [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          See, that is the problem right here. People treat his work with the same credibility as a professional journalist, but don't hold his work to any standards.

          [–]BenoNZ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          Unfortunately his influence is quite large. Just look at the journalists twitter feed to see the impact. Not ideal.

          [–]apudebeau [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          How is he not a journalist when he was conducting journalism in that video?

          All types of journalism no matter the size or prestige of the publication should be held to the same high standard. What you're saying is so backwards.

          [–]KingOfSockPuppets [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          I mean to be fair, we do typically hold individuals to different standards than well-established organizations within their fields of operation. That said people have been way to tied up over this whole saga. Folks gotta be less reckless on the internet.

          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

            [–]poverty_monster1 [スコア非表示]  (19子コメント)

            welp.

            [–]Taswelltoo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

            ya done goofed.

            [–]Yiffest [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

            Drumpf's America ladies and gentlemen, looks like he's already incited people into copying his disregard for facts

            [–]ProfXavier [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            Not a fan of Trump, but this has absolutely nothing to do with him. I understand he sucks, but let's not make every conversation into a rant about the president.

            [–]zThief [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

            Spamming "Drumpf" in many of your comments doesn't make it true

            [–]CirnexNon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            God it's all over this post history...

            [–]montypython112 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            Why delete your comments there buddy?

            [–]gt250 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            Honestly, I really hope people don't give him too much shit for this, or lose sight of what's going on because of this slip-up; This video is actually a perfect example of why everyone should be passionate about the issue Ethan is arguing about. This video shows he fucked up, admitted it asap, and took the previous video down while simultaneously uploading an explanation of what happened and why.

            That's exactly what he is arguing for: The WSJ is an entity that has some people on board there that are using it's reputation to engage in a weirdly haphazard online war with youtube and google after not getting their way when they were offended by pewdiepie. Its like a small lie that you have to keep making bigger and bigger lies to support, it just spirals out of control. Except this is on a national/global online scale, with millions in revenue at stake.

            The WSJ reporters working on this are playing fast and loose, and they are not going to go back and fact-check themselves like Ethan did, because their argument isn't about facts. Its about throwing a tantrum when you can't censor the internet, and executing any sense of journalistic ethical responsibility to raise the stakes until the other side folds. Then if they get caught, they'll apologize and try to rebuild their careers over the next 5 years, hoping this whole thing blows over.

            So kudos to Ethan for doing the things he is chastising the other side for not doing. He is literally practicing what he's preaching, and it's an admirable thing that should be supported, not shamed.

            コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

              [–]TheToeTag [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

              Everyone was so eager to attack the WSJ earlier based on misinformation and spotty facts. I wonder how many people will see the irony of this situation. I'm guessing no one.

              [–]wikired [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

              I know several people who are 100% convinced the WSJ is pure evil and trying to destroy pewdiepie and now youtube itself... and haven't even read the original article. The entirety of their knowledge on the story is from pro-pewdiepie videos telling them what to think. I'm pretty confident that the people who believed in H3H3's first video aren't gonna change their mind after this one, they aren't the 'open to evidence' types.

              [–]Widan [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

              Read some of the comments here. People are still calling the WSJ fake news and crying because their favorite YouTuber made himself look dumb.

              It seems people would rather believe a meme than a global publication.

              [–]flibbityandflobbity [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

              Let me loosen my tin foil hat a bit, but there are plenty of people out the trying to bring down discourse in general and would love to see 'big media' like the WSJ be called fake news. It encourages the idea that MSM can't be trusted.

              [–]Widan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

              You don't need to loosen your tin foil hat at all. That's exactly what's happening.

              Reddit like to pretend they're better than Facebook and other social media platforms, but this website is just as susceptible to fake news as their grandmothers on Facebook. You can still read comments here about people more willing to trust a YouTube comedian than a newspaper, and that should be concerning.

              All it's going to do is make these smaller YouTube channels and figures more popular even though they're less accountable and can reach a wider audience.

              [–]tyrotio [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

              I'm enjoying it.

              [–]AEDNOCH [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

              Reddit took down the failing WSJ even faster than it tracked down the identity of the Boston Marathon terrorists!

              [–]BenoNZ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

              It's not like the attacks were baseless.. look at the Pewdiepie drama. They made lies up about him so unfortunately Ethan made some assumptions in this case. That doesn't make the WSJ any better.

              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                [–]Srslyaidaman [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                WSJ just released this:

                Any claim that the related screenshots or any other reporting was in any way fabricated or doctored is outrageous and false.

                People are applauding H3 for apologizing but he still said "this honestly doesn't make any sense and doesn't add up at all" regarding the screenshots from the WSJ.

                [–]LostConscript [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                $12 for 160k views isn't a lot, so his argument that something still doesn't add up does hold merit, whether or not he was wrong before. Plus, he's going to defend the platform on which he built and maintains a living

                [–]Downvotes4Some [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

                So this guy started a witch-hunt based on bad information?

                [–]help_pls_thx [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                Nah, the mods don't think this is a witch hunt, even though the journalist he called out by name has been harassed non-stop on twitter since he released the video.

                [–]LostConscript [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                He's been harassed non-stop since the PDP nazi debacle, nothing new for him.

                [–]Alfie_13 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                In fairness, the writer who wrote the article started a Pewdiepie witch hunt based on bad information. That was a lot bigger than this. Pewds was getting hit on every angle because of that article.

                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                  [–]check_yes_or_no [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  You KNOW this one's real Ethan.

                  [–]Sharkysharkson [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  I have no idea what's going on. But this seems silly as hell.

                  [–]Ze_Human [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

                  This simply proves that H3H3 has more journalistic and reporting integrity then the WSJ. Kudos to you, sir

                  from some guy called Anthony in the youtube comments

                  [–]TheToeTag [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

                  Lets just ignore the fact that Ethan basically slandered the WSJ reporter with no evidence to back up his claim what so ever. Great journalistic integrity Ethan. Keep up the good work!

                  [–]Ishaan863 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                  Man it's unfortunate he would fuck up at this level. Hurts his credibility in a big way.

                  [–]Alfie_13 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  I don't think it hurts his credibility. He came out straight away and admitted to making a mistake. I'm sure it's just something that slipped his mind that someone else claimed the video and there were ads on it.

                  At least the guy admitted to being wrong right away and took the video down.

                  [–]OzzyManReviews [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  RIP "you know THIS one's real" joke. The true loss here is that a mint one-liner may never recover from this. It got caught in the cross-fire damn it.

                  [–]Downvotes4Some [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  Wonder how many death threats and how much harassment the journalist received based on the original video?

                  [–]immaturejoke [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

                  Good that he apologized, but I'm pretty disappointed that he's still missing the point: It doesn't matter if the dude himself isn't making money, Coca Cola doesn't want their advertisements played before racist/extremist/homophobic/neo-nazi content.

                  [–]lnsetick [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                  yeah, this half apology misses the point and isn't really compelling imo. "we made a tiny little goof earlier in a video that hit the top of reddit BUT SOMETHING IS STILL FISHY AF WITH THE WSJ AND THANK YOU ALL FOR SUPPORTING ME"

                  [–]saucymac [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                  honestly how dumb can he be to continue the argument after admitting he goofed? He's already got 1 lawsuit that's putting him in the shit financially, why on earth would he try and take on a company that could absolutely destroy him if he gets anything incorrect?

                  [–]montypython112 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  Yeah you don't get it. The point is not that no money is being made, but that the numbers don't add up. 110k+ views with premium advertisers that pay top dollar and the network is only making 12 dollars is a suspiciously low figure. The implication is that the screen shots might still be inauthentic.

                  [–]Kyotoshi [スコア非表示]  (21子コメント)

                  Good on Ethan for admitting he was wrong and not leaving fake news up. More than you can say for the WSJ and other media.

                  [–]Srslyaidaman [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                  He literally said "this honestly doesn't make any sense and doesn't add up at all" regarding the screenshots from the WSJ.

                  He's still questioning the accuracy of the report, even though WSJ released this statement:

                  Any claim that the related screenshots or any other reporting was in any way fabricated or doctored is outrageous and false.

                  [–]XxX_Uber_Sniper_XxX [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

                  Yeah seriously good on Ethan for admitting fault when the facts were incorrect.

                  [–]Corrupt-Spartan [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

                  So he got mad when he claimed the WSJ was incorrect but since he was incorrect himself it's all good? LOL

                  [–]lnsetick [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  shh we're trying to dismantle the MSM so that honest Youtube journalists and alt-media can take over

                  [–]SSAUS [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                  I don't know why we can't just look at these situations individually. Yeah, it may be funny that Ethan criticised the WSJ and then fucked up himself, but at least he admitted it and apologised. Anyone who can admit their faults and own up to mistakes are okay in my book.

                  [–]JammieDodgers [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                  So he got mad when he claimed the WSJ was incorrect but since he was incorrect himself it's all good? LOL

                  If he admits he was incorrect and makes a video correcting his mistake, then yes, it's all good. What more do you want? If the WSJ admits that it was wrong to coerce companies into pulling their ads from youtube, and tries to correct it, then that would be all good too.

                  [–]gonnabearealdentist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  If the WSJ admits that it was wrong to coerce companies into pulling their ads from youtube, and tries to correct it, then that would be all good too.

                  The WSJ didn't walk into a boardroom and hold a gun to someones head. Those companies were provided info and then willingly separated ties with YouTube

                  [–]_ctrlaltdlt_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  Bullshit. That's the problem with media these days. Reporting to be first to get it out there instead of getting it right. He could have stated facts of what was known instead of making insinuations people can make on their own, if they want. He is back peddling after being called out to save face. That hurts all credibility you have.

                  [–]SupaCure [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                  AND correcting the information that was given. Seriously didn't expect for them to follow up with the claimant.

                  [–]WaxFaster [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                  Could the insanely low payout from the video possibly be due to someone from WSJ repeatedly watching the video waiting to get an ad to take a screenshot? Would a small group of viewers repeatedly restarting the video not allow it to build up the ad revenue for the claimant?

                  [–]SupaCure [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  I think the main point to take away is that the video clearly had its monetization turned off or significantly hindered at some point, or else it wouldn't have 160k views and 12 dollars of revenue, right?

                  [–]based_pat [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                  You have to click the ads for the person to get money from them, right?

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    [–]martinaee [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                    He might be wrong and it was claimed and monitized, but honestly it still seems super fishy.

                    He's right... a video made TWELVE dollars after the copyright claim and had videos from Starbucks, Toyota, and COKE seen by just one person in 30 minutes? Seems unlikely.

                    Who knows, but it does seem like bull. Either way the WSJ isn't "off the hook" in my book. Their uncontextualized smear campaigns against specific Youtubers show what type of game they play and it isn't savory.

                    [–]dwild [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                    It's all depends on where the views came, if they were on adblock, etc...

                    Ethan is american, he attract view from US, theses are the one that bring an high CPM. The other channel? Russian... sure there will be people from US too, but much less.

                    That will bring a much lower CPM. When the WSJ goes on it, traffic from US, so yeah it will get the high paying CPM campaign that target US citizen.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                        [–]Neonsea1234 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        Embarrassing.

                        [–]newuser13 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                        Okay, so the basis of H3H3's rant is that Google wouldn't put ads on a video with the N-word in the title.

                        He proved himself wrong by finding out the original uploader made $8 on the video in 2 days.

                        Then he claimed WSJ couldn't have found ads on the video because it was demonetized, and again he was proven that the video had ads playing on it because of a copyright claim.

                        Now, he's still going on about how much he doubts the screenshots were real, because of the "premium level ads."

                        Meanwhile, WSJ responded with:

                        The Wall Street Journal stands by its March 24th report that major brand advertisements were running alongside objectionable videos on YouTube. Any claim that the related screenshots or any other reporting was in any way fabricated or doctored is outrageous and false. The screenshots related to the article -- which represent only some of those that were found -- were captured on March 23rd and March 24th.

                        Claims have been made about viewer counts on the WSJ screen shots of major brand ads on objectionable YouTube material. YouTube itself says viewer counts are unreliable and variable.

                        Claims have also been made about the revenue statements of the YouTube account that posted videos included in those screenshots. In some cases, a particular poster doesn't necessarily earn revenue on ads running before their videos.

                        The Journal is proud of its reporting and the high standards it brings to its journalism. We go to considerable lengths to ensure its accuracy and fairness, and that is why we are among the most trusted sources of news in the world.

                        H3H3 already has one lawsuit on his hands. Picking a fight with WSJ is not a good fucking idea.

                        [–]laststance [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        Yeah that was a weird part of the video. "You can get money if you have 'nigger' in your title!" Proceeds to show video with the word "nigger" in the title earning ad money.

                        [–]TheSeminerd [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

                        So the images weren't photoshopped? edit: thank you for the responses, I get it now

                        [–]GreenDragonWishtail [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                        They weren't necessarily photoshopped.

                        Originally Ethan posed that the video was not monetized so it would have been impossible for WSJ to have seen an ad. Now that it came out that the video is indeed monetized (it's just that the channel owner isn't getting the money since it was claimed as a copyright infringement) Ethan is saying it's possible WSJ saw an ad, though it's highly unlikely since this video made ~$12 and the WSJ claims they saw a Starbucks, Coke, and Toyota ad all on this video within 30 views. Any video on YouTube pulling ads from huge brands like those, especially so often, would be making more money than $12.

                        TL;DR: Ethan still suspicious of the images but no longer has enough proof to say they are photoshopped.

                        [–]Go_Go_Godzilla [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        "No longer has enough proof" is an odd way of saying never had enough proof (because his so-called proof was wrong).

                        [–]dwild [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        That video could easily make 12$. Have you been on the channel? There's nothing good there and the channel come from Russia.

                        Who is going to watch theses? Random people, probably from Russia, possibly with adblock. Theses are going to be really low CPM.

                        I'm not a Youtuber, but in the past I published some flash games with ads. There was a breakdown of CPM by country, most of my ads were showing in China, the eCPM for theses were near 1 cent. When it was shown in US, I got some eCPM near 10$. A clear majority of ad shown were from China though.

                        The same could have happened over there. The WSJ would still get high paying ads targeted to US citizens, but that's probably not what the most views came from for that video.

                        [–]woofshark [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        This neither proves nor denies this. Ethan seems to believe its still shopped. But one thing is for sure, just because it was claimed doesn't mean there's not something fishy going on with the screenshots.

                        [–]TheEpicTurban[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        I don't think it proves that they weren't, just that Ethan's evidence isn't as solid as he previously thought it to be.

                        [–]immaturejoke [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

                        It's very unlikely that they were.

                        [–]Spunkie [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                        How are you coming to that conclusion?

                        It would seem they have gone from "we believe these screenshots are fishy" to "we think we have proof these screenshots are doctored" back to "these screenshots are very fishy".

                        [–]immaturejoke [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        Because they literally have no evidence of them being faked. There is, however, evidence that ads were in fact running on the video and that's it. To say that solely because the earnings were low the images were doctored would be a leap in logic to say the least.

                        [–]gonnabearealdentist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                        OK, so there's no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

                        But people suspect that there's perhaps something wrong with them.

                        [–]Spunkie [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        I didn't make any claims that they were or were not guilty. The person I was responding to though said it's very unlikely the images were doctored which based on the scale you provided is on the extreme end of the certainty scale.

                        Just asking why the person was so certain when it seems everyone should be somewhere between possibly not and perhaps on that scale. The only difference being how much each person trusts mainstream news to begin with.

                        [–]Trichinas_9 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        It was claimed by another company and they made slight revenue, but not enough compared to what a video with coke and starbucks ads would make with similar views. That coupled with some other stuff means theres still a chance its shopped. At the very least theres something fishy going on.

                        [–]Fautonex [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                        They could have, but it is entirely possible that there were ads on the video. I guess we'll never know

                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                          [–]tyrotio [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                          LOL, an apology video where he still casts aspersions even after admitting his own ineptitude. Why do people watch this shit?

                          [–]roozter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          Lesson learn here: never trust the dude(Gulagbear) who posted hateful video as a source, because obviously they are biased and have an agenda of their own. Also, if you are emotional invested into something, make sure you get a neutral opinion before releasing a huge claim.

                          [–]ntermation [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          what happened to 'you cannot monetise video's with the N word' ?

                          [–]drake8599 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          I think the damage has already been done unfortunately.

                          [–]Noerdy [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

                          What is that chance that the WSJ does a 180 and sues h3h3 for defamation? Or is that not possible anymore because he removed the video? Is it even possible?

                          [–]warpedrevolution [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

                          It's unlikely, as he published essentially a retraction almost immediately and removed the offending video without being prompted to, they would likely have to prove that his statement was made recklessly (which would be held to the standards of a reasonable person not a reasonable journalist) or intentionally to mislead.

                          Besides the WSJ is a multi-million dollar entity that has bigger fish to fry than getting tied up in pointless litigation with a minor Youtube celebrity. Their damages would probably be too low for them to even consider it.

                          If he hadn't removed the video they probably would have threatened to sue (and probably would have sued if he had stonewalled) but companies are rarely in the business of going after individuals.

                          [–]Noerdy [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                          Ethan gets millions of views in his anti-WSJ videos, as do many other youtubers. WSJ might want to make an example out of him, and scare others.

                          [–]warpedrevolution [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          Perhaps, but they would run the risk of making more of a thing out of this. He gets millions of views but if there was word of a controversy he might get even more. Also the optics would look bad, big company going after tiny Youtuber.

                          They'll also probably do their research and see that the last time he was sued he managed to crowd source his defense funds. Something similar is likely to happen here which means that WSJ would be in for a long drawn out litigation that keeps the "story" alive.

                          [–]montypython112 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          WSJ undoubtedly has lawyers on retainer for exactly this kind of situation. They would not make a move until the current h3h3 lawsuit concludes after the expected summery judgement. If h3h3 wins that case, the precedent COULD stave off WSJ's legal team, because despite the circumstances being different, a suggestion of falsehood or misconduct, ESPECIALLY when it comes to questioning journalistic integrity, is a very, very weak case for libel. Also, of note, libel is published defamation, slander is spoken by the defendant, in this case, because its Ethan's platform, it would usually be considered libel.

                          My above comment.

                          [–]montypython112 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          WSJ undoubtedly has lawyers on retainer for exactly this kind of situation. They would not make a move until the current h3h3 lawsuit concludes after the expected summery judgement. If h3h3 wins that case, the precedent COULD stave off WSJ's legal team, because despite the circumstances being different, a suggestion of falsehood or misconduct, ESPECIALLY when it comes to questioning journalistic integrity, is a very, very weak case for libel.

                          Also, of note, libel is published defamation, slander is spoken by the defendant, in this case, because its Ethan's platform, it would usually be considered libel.

                          [–]ApartRapier6491 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          There are countless of mirrors so yes it's possible.

                          [–]montypython112 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          It's possible, though unlikely.

                          [–]Art_7s [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                          And so it begins

                          [–]Ollie2220 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          In the interest of admitting mistakes, I will say I did post one of those as well. After I saw this video was first, I have taken mine down.

                          I'm sorry.

                          [–]MrSuperBacon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          Go back to being a meme machine you fat fuck.

                          [–]Toweltrees [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

                          You guys are a bunch of fucking idiots even if most of you are 12. I repeat, you are fucking idiots. It's better that you accept it sooner than later or you'll find yourself in a similar position as "Keemstar" or whatever other idiot you idolize. They profit off of teenage drama, they are grown men acting like middle school girls. For every "successful" man child there are 10,000 who have the same attitude, same "talent" that are fucked in most aspects of their lives. They are not some geniuses. You blindly following these man-children because they "get it" and everyone else is just too stupid or old or evil is retarded.

                          The mainstream media is not out on a mission to "kill YouTube". You are in a bubble of other fucking idiots. Petty drama is useless and you'll retract back into a 12 year old if you continue placing such importance on these stupid things. Read the WSJ article on pewdiepie which I'm guessing 10% of you did while the other 90% talked about if for an hour and were outraged after reading 2 lines. If you thought it was easy how Trump led a bunch of "stupid" people you are a fucking idiot who will be led far easier by a bigger idiot. Do yourself a favor and get out of this stupid useless drama shit

                          [–]immaturejoke [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          Heavy-handed but true.

                          Take a look at WSJ's viewership & demographics and you'll understand why YouTube means nothing to them.

                          45% of viewers are millionaires. Average age is 43. Tell me more about how they're feeling threatened by YouTube comedians? They may be slowly dying out but YouTubers have nothing to do with it.

                          [–]SupaCure [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          So, tell me how you really feel.

                          [–]SupaCure [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          Inactive for 8 months and then suddenly edgelord?

                          [–]Trichinas_9 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                          Jack Nicas, is that you?

                          コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                            [–]Limited_Sanity [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            But… It's not taken down. I just re-watched it on the H3H3 channel again. No mirror required...

                            It is even on my suggested videos.

                            [–]h0nest_Bender [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                            Does that explain why several of the screenshots showed the same number of views, etc?

                            [–]Quom [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            That isn't a rare thing. The Youtube view counter is notoriously inaccurate to the point that it was odd that Ethan even raised it in the first place (especially as a youtuber who must be aware of the counter being inaccurate).

                            But the whole thing is ridiculous. Youtube has access to all of the information. If the screenshots are doctored or there is any inaccuracy YT will release a press release tomorrow and WSJ will print a retraction and/or there will be word of a lawsuit within the week.

                            Why Ethan decided to wade in I genuinely have no idea. At most he breaks the story first and makes a few dollars and gains some new subs, but currently he's risking another lawsuit and looks a bit foolish since it didn't take much thought to see in the first video that he wasn't really proving anything.

                            [–]coriamon2 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            Well, the popcorn is delicious.

                            [–]T0DDTHEGOD [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            Mirror to original??

                            [–]pieceofschmidt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            Would this somehow mean that a video with that title was in fact monetized? Otherwise Ethan is still right...

                            [–]Prophet_Of_Loss [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            Russian psyops has done an excellent job of sowing seeds of distrust in our government and media. Now, we have a self-perpetuating culture of manufactured scandal and conspiracy that further adds noise to the signal. All without firing a shot.

                            I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out the alt-right movement was astroturfed by Russian intelligence.

                            [–]ImDravenUCrazy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            Welp so the WSJ check cleared then Ethan?

                            jk

                            [–]Raneados [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            He can apologize for it all he wants, and that's commendable, but all it's gonna do is make his rabid supporters double down on both attacking the WSJ (over nothing) AND further "papa bless" Ethan. At some point, the cult of personality takes over.

                            People will STILL take the original video as gospel and keep attacking the WSJ and the journalist even after Ethan HIMSELF says not to. But the problem is, he incited it to begin with.

                            Him apologizing is covering up the wound, but there was still a wound created by a celebrity telling their millions of supporters that something was fake news without any evidence. The bandage will never be big enough.

                            [–]Yosonimbored[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            You can delete it, but the damage he caused is done whether WSJ was using a real screenshot or not. Like if it turns out WSJ is in fact the right one, h3h3 video already was out there and did its damage and people will still take it as gospel.

                            Real shit Show from both parties.

                            [–]DiddyKing [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            This was the funniest comment from the initial video thread lmao. Holy moly

                            [–]leopald18 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            lol time for ehtan to get sued on top of him getting sued by that one other guy. cmon ethan, you fucked up BAD

                            [–]late2party [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            Beautiful try

                            [–]The_Lolbrary [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            You done got bamboozled

                            [–]SolidTake [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            I hope they get sued

                            [–]dibship [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            I would like to point out, in my RSS feed, this video showed up like 12 times. WTF is with people wanting to disseminate this shit with comments that come out of t_d?

                            [–]Downvotes4Some [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            WSJ could sue for defamation. This dude already has one lawsuit against him (albeit a frivolous one), how does he not call his lawyer before posting that video!?

                            [–]kamehamehaa [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            Okay first of all, for all those who are saying that Ethan should be held to the same standard as the fucking Wall Street Journal, you're wrong.

                            Secondly, it's still fishy as fuck.

                            Third, Ethan apologized immediately.

                            Fourth, WSJ has been going after youtubers for some reason on the grounds that content creators like Pewdiepie are racist when they are so clearly not. Even the guy who uploaded the video this is all about says in a comment "im not racist, that's just the title of the fucking song" (i'm paraphrasing)

                            [–]cerebud [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            Someone on the internet jumping the gun, thinking they're better than traditional journalists? So shocked

                            [–]Trichinas_9 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            RESPECT for the fix. Good on him for recognizing the mistake and making the new vid.

                            [–]skypole [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                            Who ever buys anything based on a YouTube ad anyway. Who even watches them. Advertisers have been suckered on a grand scale for years by Google et al. Johnson & Johnson will not sell one less Bandaid or one less bottle of baby oil as a result of pulling their ads from YouTube indefinitely.

                            [–]JVemon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            A smaller, not well known brand can benefit from the ads. If this small brand is my competitor, then I wouldn't want people to see their ads, making me compete for the adspace even though I might not improve my own sales. If you're at the top, make sure nobody comes close.

                            [–]paulacion [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            I get what you mean but there have been tons of studies on this topic. Coke once stopped advertising in areas and saw a decline in sales in those areas- even though most people don't see a coke add and go on amazon and order coke, some people see a coke add and next time at walmart decide to buy a 12 pack

                            [–]MayContainPeanuts [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            Johnson & Johnson ads seem to have worked on you.

                            [–]h3h3_isnt_funny [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                            h3h3 isnt funny

                            コメントをもっと表示する (16 返事)